Let's talk 2008-place your bets

[RichardNixon]

I like McCain a lot. Don't really agree with him, but a good, authentic man.

A lot better than the current bozo.

I saw him on Stewart the other night. I liked him up til the part of the interview where he lied about "the entire world" thinking that Iraq had WMD. Just another crony after that comment.

Funny even when people say every American wanted to go to war...

[D]

Im definitely voting for Hillary, Even If I have to write her in.  Some say that she ran the country instead of Bill, which would be a great thing.

Clinton made some personal mistakes but U cannot argue with all he got accomplished.

Look at that Surplus he had, I mean WOW.

Am I being naive when i say that I dont think 9/11 wouldve happened if Clinton were still president?

or is that a dumb assumption?

I just felt he had such a great relationship with everyone, that it might not have happened or was it inevitable?

[Drew]

Am I being naive when i say that I dont think 9/11 wouldve happened if Clinton were still president?

or is that a dumb assumption?

I just felt he had such a great relationship with everyone, that it might not have happened or was it inevitable?

I'm not sure about that one D. But wasn't Clinton in office or just about to be in office when the first attack on the World Trade Center happened?

[Booker Floyd]

I'm not sure about that one D. But wasn't Clinton in office or just about to be in office when the first attack on the World Trade Center happened?

Yes, he was in office for a month when the '93 attacks occurred. 

Im inclined to believe the 2001 attacks woud have happened even if Gore (or Clinton) were in office.  Im also inclined to believe that the Bush administration didnt give much attention to Al Qaeda and terrorism in those first 8 months, whereas Gore/Clinton would have been picking up where he left off and might have handled certain information differently, such as the infamous August 6th PDB stating "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." 

Some say that she ran the country instead of Bill, which would be a great thing.

Absolutely untrue.  Bill Clinton has a reputation for being a hands-on policy wonk, and while she probably had some influence on some decisions, it was mostly Bill.  I strongly doubt thats the case with the current president.

[Surfrider]

I like McCain a lot. Don't really agree with him, but a good, authentic man.

A lot better than the current bozo.

I saw him on Stewart the other night. I liked him up til the part of the interview where he lied about "the entire world" thinking that Iraq had WMD. Just another crony after that comment.

Its funny that you will disagree with anyone that counters your conspiracy theory assertions.  McCain flat out said that he didn't think the President lied about the war.  Despite not having any evidence to the contrary, you call him a crony.  McCain may be a lot of things, but her is certainly not a crony.

Funny even when people say every American wanted to go to war...

[SLCPUNK]

I like McCain a lot. Don't really agree with him, but a good, authentic man.

A lot better than the current bozo.

I saw him on Stewart the other night. I liked him up til the part of the interview where he lied about "the entire world" thinking that Iraq had WMD. Just another crony after that comment.

Its funny that you will disagree with anyone that counters your conspiracy theory assertions.  McCain flat out said that he didn't think the President lied about the war.  Despite not having any evidence to the contrary, you call him a crony.  McCain may be a lot of things, but her is certainly not a crony.

Funny even when people say every American wanted to go to war...

Anybody who sits on tv and says "The entire world believed Saddam had weapons" is a crony. Since that is a lie-period.

[Booker Floyd]

Anybody who sits on tv and says "The entire world believed Saddam had weapons" is a crony. Since that is a lie-period.

Thats just not true.  You can say theyre wrong, but that belief doesnt make them a "crony."

[SLCPUNK]

Anybody who sits on tv and says "The entire world believed Saddam had weapons" is a crony. Since that is a lie-period.

Thats just not true.  You can say theyre wrong, but that belief doesnt make them a "crony."

Might as well be one, to continue to lie in such a way. Why lie in such an outright way? America is tired of the dishonesty. His statement put him in the same column as Bush and Co. as far as I'm concerned.

[D]

I saw on the news today where they said that Kerry and other democrats supported the war only because they didnt think they could get elected otherwise.

Forgive me if im wrong but thats pretty fucked up.

U help send people to war for fear over your political career?


My only problem is the fact that people like Kerry didnt stand up before the war, its easy to stand up after everything has went to shit, but He voted for the war and that cant be excused either.

I know Bush had the final say but still, everyone who voted for the war should share in some of the blame as well.

[SLCPUNK]

I saw on the news today where they said that Kerry and other democrats supported the war only because they didnt think they could get elected otherwise.

Forgive me if im wrong but thats pretty fucked up.

Uh...I'd like to see a link for that one.

Who said?

[D]

It was real early, I was flippin around tryin to find news on Eddie Guerrero's death and it was a commentary person *not FoxNews* i know that much, either MSNBC or CNN, I didnt mean to insinuate that was 100 percent true cause Im sure it was an opinion and not necessarily a fact.


I do like what Bush fired back though in his Asia speech and it does seem to me like some, not all are playing politics now.

But its who u want to believe.

I just have a hard time believing that Bush is so evil, he'd manipulate intelligence just to go to war.

If he did, that is unforgivable, but Id have to have solid proof before condeming someone of something that attrocious.

[Booker Floyd]

I saw on the news today where they said that Kerry and other democrats supported the war only because they didnt think they could get elected otherwise.

Dont you think you should approach a claim like that just a bit more critically? ?Do you realize that you watched some talking head speculate and have accepted it as fact?

How anybodys presidential ambitions figured into their vote cannot be known. ?Its more likely that they actually believed what they were being told by the administration at the time, which was still a huge mistake and youre right about one thing: they deserve some of the blame. ?

My only problem is the fact that people like Kerry didnt stand up before the war, its easy to stand up after everything has went to shit, but He voted for the war and that cant be excused either.

Despite the Republican talking point, Congress members were not privy to the same intelligence as the administration. ?They werent aware that vital intelligence was disputed because the administration obviously chose not to share them - it wasnt in their interest. ?So most of Congress are guilty of being suckers, some may be guilty of worse, and they share blame for this disaster...but its really nothing compared to the administrations part.

[SLCPUNK]

I saw on the news today where they said that Kerry and other democrats supported the war only because they didnt think they could get elected otherwise.

Dont you think you should approach a claim like that just a bit more critically?  Do you realize that you watched some talking head speculate and have accepted it as fact?

This is a very important statement.

When you watch "news", see who is saying it. And ask if it is honestly news at all. The format of many cable "news" channels is to talk about the news. That way, they can put their opinions in it, without lying about what happened (they can fall back on that as an excuse-if called for accountability), shaping public opinion of the people that just flipping the channel.

[Surfrider]

I saw on the news today where they said that Kerry and other democrats supported the war only because they didnt think they could get elected otherwise.

Dont you think you should approach a claim like that just a bit more critically?? Do you realize that you watched some talking head speculate and have accepted it as fact?

This is a very important statement.

When you watch "news", see who is saying it. And ask if it is honestly news at all. The format of many cable "news" channels is to talk about the news. That way, they can put their opinions in it, without lying about what happened (they can fall back on that as an excuse-if called for accountability), shaping public opinion of the people that just flipping the channel.

And if they disagree with your point of view disregard it.  Right SLC

[sandman]

Hillary's move to the right continues....


N.Y. Times:
Hillary 'panderer in chief'?
Newspaper scorches Sen. Clinton for grabbing torch on flag-burning

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 8, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is being blasted by the New York Times for co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag, as the paper suggests she's pandering on the issue.

In an editorial titled "Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode," the Times notes the Democrat says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning, yet looks to make it a federal crime to scorch Old Glory.

In public statements on the matter, Mrs. Clinton has said, "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag-desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."


"It looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways," the Times writes. "It's hard to see this as anything but pandering ? there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation's security in peril.

"The bill attempts to equate flag-burning with cross-burning, which the Supreme Court, in a sensible and carefully considered 2003 decision, said could be prosecuted under certain circumstances as a violation of civil rights law. It's a ridiculous comparison. Burning a cross is a unique act because of its inextricable connection to the Ku Klux Klan and to anti-black violence and intimidation. A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened. Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government."

The Times ends its opinion by noting "the whole point of the First Amendment is to protect expressions of political opinion that a majority of Americans find disturbing or unacceptable. As a lawyer, the senator presumably already knows that."

In recent days, Sen. Clinton has been coming under fire from the political left for stances appearing to be on both sides of the fence when it comes to the Iraq war.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a scathing attack came from Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin who wrote, "Hillary Clinton today holds the new North American record for fakery. She copies. She sneaks and slithers past you with her opinion on a war that kills every day."

[SLCPUNK]

I saw on the news today where they said that Kerry and other democrats supported the war only because they didnt think they could get elected otherwise.

Dont you think you should approach a claim like that just a bit more critically?  Do you realize that you watched some talking head speculate and have accepted it as fact?

This is a very important statement.

When you watch "news", see who is saying it. And ask if it is honestly news at all. The format of many cable "news" channels is to talk about the news. That way, they can put their opinions in it, without lying about what happened (they can fall back on that as an excuse-if called for accountability), shaping public opinion of the people that just flipping the channel.

And if they disagree with your point of view disregard it.  Right SLC

It is one thing to disagree.

It is yet another to lie (something your camp is good at GNRNIGHTTRAIN  )

[D]

O'Reilly was sayin one night how it appears that Hillary is tryin to win the RIGHT vote while Bill stays on the LEFT to win their vote.

Great strategy if its true.

[sandman]

O'Reilly was sayin one night how it appears that Hillary is tryin to win the RIGHT vote while Bill stays on the LEFT to win their vote.

Great strategy if its true.

interesting point. in fact, hillary has been acting like a full blown republican for months now (i can't believe the flag burning bill).

AND bill recently came out and made some very critical comments of our mission in iraq (while he was in the middle east).

seems like they are playing both sides of the fence.

hillary's strategy is risky though. many liberals don't want her to run cause they don't think she has a prayer of winning. and moving to the right is gonna piss these people off.

and warner (if he decides to run) has the moderate position covered already - cause he actually is a moderate and won't have to lie about his beliefs to "appear" moderate the way hillary is. he will try to show he's liberal enough, which i think is an easier move to make.

[RichardNixon]

O'Reilly was sayin one night how it appears that Hillary is tryin to win the RIGHT vote while Bill stays on the LEFT to win their vote.

Great strategy if its true.

interesting point. in fact, hillary has been acting like a full blown republican for months now (i can't believe the flag burning bill).

AND bill recently came out and made some very critical comments of our mission in iraq (while he was in the middle east).

seems like they are playing both sides of the fence.

hillary's strategy is risky though. many liberals don't want her to run cause they don't think she has a prayer of winning. and moving to the right is gonna piss these people off.

and warner (if he decides to run) has the moderate position covered already - cause he actually is a moderate and won't have to lie about his beliefs to "appear" moderate the way hillary is. he will try to show he's liberal enough, which i think is an easier move to make.

Yeah, I agree. Although I don't really think Bill is courting the left-wing of the party, more like the mid-center.